Well, Matthew Roberts and John Stevens’ articles are now live on the Evangelicals Now website, should you choose to read them. Sadly, Matthew continues to repeat the same errors that I’ve already identified in his article.
In summary, Matthew sets out a position on sin which we would all agree with, namely that sin is a heart condition so that we are unable to please God. We need repentance and regeneration. At this point, given that his supposed interlocutors would agree with such a proposition, you would hope that he would pause and ask why those who not only agree with him but in many cases have been clearly proclaiming this for years, long before we had heard of him and the controversy might disagree with him. Instead, he plunbges headlong into an accusation that:
“But now, in part because of reluctance to regard homosexual desires as sinful, a new impetus has grown up within evangelicalism to say that sinful desire is not sin. It is not offensive to God but a mere orientation, itself neutral unless we act upon it. It is just part of my identity. It does not incur God’s wrath, and it need not be atoned for.
The attraction of this is the same as that of the Roman view: it makes it possible to believe that my standing before God is built, at least in part, on my own innocence. As long as I don’t act on sexual lusts, I don’t need to rest on Christ’s blood and righteousness to atone for them. I can believe the secular account of ‘sexual orientation’ as an intrinsic, and morally insignificant, part of my nature. And so, rather than grieving over my distorted sexual urges, asking forgiveness for them, and seeking to put them to death in the power of the Spirit, they can be accepted, made peace with, spoken of without shame, perhaps even celebrated.
I want to first of all note that once again, the focus is narrowly on one aspect of temptation and desire so that some Christians are singled out when others are not. Secondly, that this is a misrepresentation of the position of others. I would encourage readers to check back for themselves what has been said by people like Sam Allberry and others in terms of the specific issue of same sex attraction and orientation.
In terms of the wider claim that some of us have fallen for a view that:
“makes it possible to believe that my standing before God is built, at least in part, on my own innocence. As long as I don’t act on sexual lusts, I don’t need to rest on Christ’s blood and righteousness to atone for them.”
This again is simply not the case. Those disagreeing with him, including me have been clear throughout that justification is by faith alone, that it is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. Rather, there are three things that we have argued need to be considered. I’m going to highlight them here but they reflect what I’ve written elsewhere. I think we can sum them up as “being aware of the complexities of now and not yet living.
- That we have been fully and completely justified So that our sinful condition has been dealt with on the Cross. We have been forgiven, our guilt and shame has been removed. We are new creations. Yes, there is the challenge of the ongoing presence of sin, the now and not yet of in progress sanctification and the wait for future glorification. However, we need to give attention to how Scripture speaks of us now and thet yes, there is a distancing between the old man and the new. Therefore, do we need to repentant again of what we have already repented from and been forgiven from?
- In my last article, I observed that Evangelicals Now were accepting the question as posed by Matthew “Is sinful desire sin?” As I pointed out, that is a tautological question. Of course, something that is sinful is sin. However, Matthew persists with this woefully inadequate question. The result is that he does not consider the complexities of desire itself. Of course Scripture describes wrong desire. However, it also talks about us “delighting in the Lord” and him “granting the desires of our hear”. We need to consider how this is possible. The answer must be that the regenerate believer has a new heart and therefore their desires can be good.
- He continues to attempt to over separate internal temptation from external temptation. He misses the point that temptation acts on the same good desires that we do, for identity, comfort and security.
- Surely our concern should be with what Scripture says and yet throughout the debate I’ve yet to see any serious engagement by Matthew Roberts and others with Biblical exegesis. There has been speed to accuse others of serious, dangerous error and yet a lack of evidence rooted in sustained Biblical exegesis. In this article, Matthew references Scriptures but again fails to show us through careful exegesis and exposition how those Scriptures support his argument and contradict Johns. In fact, I had wondered if I should go back and write another article responding in detail to Matthew’s exegesis here – but then I realised there is none, so I have nothing to respond to!
I am deeply disappointed with Matthew’s article, it not only fails to engage the position of those who disagree with him but in fact, badly misrepresents them.[1] I hope that this narises from misunderstanding and I hope that Matthew will take time to correct the record as quickly as possible,
[1] Specifically in regards to the claim of semi-pelagianism noted above but also in terms of imposing motives and also the wider claim that we are creeping into Roman Catholic or Wesleyan Perfectionism thinking.
Faithroots 